A wide-open view of the practice of street photography by Michael David Murphy, While Seated.

Lane on Leica

In this week’s New Yorker, Anthony Lane examines Leica, and explores, in one sentence, an idea I’ve been batting around for a few years, that Garry Winogrand may have been the world’s first digital photographer.

Garry Winogrand might have felt relieved to secure those thousands of images on a hard drive, rather than on frangible film, although it could be that the taking of a photograph meant more to him than the printed result.

And later, Lane takes an M8 for a test drive:

If you can conquer the slight queasiness that comes from walking about with seven thousand dollarsâ€™ worth of machinery hanging around your neck, an afternoon with the M8 is a dangerously pleasant groove to get into. I can understand that, were you a sports photographer, perched far away from the action, or a paparazzo, fighting to squeeze off twenty consecutive frames of Britney Spears falling down outside a night club, this would not be your tool of choice, but for more patient mortals it feels very usable indeed. This is not just a question of ergonomics, or of the diamond-like sharpness of the lens. Rather, it has to do with the old, bewildering Leica trick: the illusion, fostered by a mere machine, that the world out there is asking to be looked atâ€”to be caught and consumed while it is fresh, like a trout.

8 thoughts on “Lane on Leica”

An excellent article. Really makes me yearn to own a Leica.
I wonder though, what Winogrand would have felt about the instant viewing of digital. Considering he would wait up to a year to develop his negatives to avoid bias in his editing process.

Years ago, I set up a wee savings account for an M. Now, lots of tiny contributions later, I am nearly able to buy a body and a 50mm or 35mm (haven’t decided). I was explaining this to my wife when her skepticism about spending four grand told me to be quiet. I decided to read the New Yorker and accidentally opened it to this article. Fate? The thing is, I was secretly hoping that New Yorker objectivity would sober my irrational thinking regarding shelling out four grand for a used, film, manual focus camera. No luck. It was as good an advertisement as I’ve ever read. The M purchase plan remains intact.

@Nicolas – are you saving for an MP or M7? I was able to get a beautiful M6 and a Voigtlander 40 f/1.4 (new) lens for about a third of what you are talking about in cost.

It was a really great way to discover if I rangefinder shooting was really for me (it is – and I have since added an M8 and a few lenses).

Finding good, used, Leica lenses is a hobby unto itself… the lens ‘measurebators’ put crazy ideas in your head: “No, I must have the 4th generation 35 Summicron – not the newer ASPH version – for the creamier bokeh, of course” – but when you do finally track down the elusive cheap, right version and minty object of your dreams it makes it all the more worthwhile.

Personally, I love my Leicas for the small size and great low light capabilities. I think the articles does a great job of capturing the appeal of Leica cameras. It’s a great writeup for sending friends and family to read – so they can know your obsession a little better – or at least know that you’re not alone with it.